So i'm sure there have been a few threads on this matter, but rather old, and now that osymetricusa is more available, especially on competitive cyclist, i thought i'd ask again. Specifically for a time trial bike, which is the better option to go with? I'm geared toward the Osymetric more, as its more ovalized and seems more suited for a TT. Or its just the wiggins effect...

Maybe small things to consider? Weight? Aero-ness? I know rotor makes aero and non aero versions of their rings, and OS only one type. Rotor seems to be of better quality too. Either way, i'd be getting a 52t whichever one i go with. Most likely a compact 52/38 set up, but with standard inner. For a TT, it doesnt seem worth it drop like $100-$150 more for an inner i'd rarely use. In this case, shift quality doesn't matter much either.

I just seem to be getting mixed ideas from wherever im reading from. Some say the OS is too ovalized or strains some part of your leg. Any input would be nice. Eventually i might go oval rings on my road bike as well, but i want to test them out on my TT first.

I just spent 6 or 7 weeks with q rings on my road bike and have just gone back to round.

For starters, a round inner ring would be a bad idea unless you are confident you will never need to use it - the difference in pedaling motion and forces is drastic and honestly, not the easiest (at least for me). I'd say it took every bit of a month for me to be comfortable with the rings, and the first couple weeks sucked. I know you're not asking for a comparison between round and oval but I emphasize this as a consideration for mixing round and oval rings.
The reason I took them off is the same reason I think they'll be great on a tt bike - they work well in an isolated range and you definitely notice that your power stroke is shortened and very isolated. If you're happy with the idea of adapting your style to a "masher" I'd say go big or go home and get Osymetric.

The aerodynamics of chain rings, to me, is a bit ridiculous to consider. The weight and shifting of the Q Rings was great.

I've been using Q-rings on all my bikes for about 4 years now with great results. 50/36 on all my road bikes (3 of them...) and 52/38 Aero Q-Rings on my TT bike. I think it's as easy as either you like them or you don't... I've never heard anyone in-between... For me, they make a world of difference. Shifting (F/D) does suffer somewhat, but honestly not a enough to make it feel bad, just a bit less crisp then the round rings and you get use to it very quickly (just slightly less force when shifting and you'll be perfectly fine).

Q-Rings do have a few benefits compared to OS. First, you can adjust the position of the max diameter to match your position and desire (and you can adjust both the inner and outer). Second, Q-rings do have a smaller difference between largest and smallest diameter, making them less extreme and a bit easier to set up. Technically, OS are not even rings, they are two cams

_________________
"Suddenly the thought struck me; my floor is someone elses ceiling" - Nils Ferlin

First, there is no comparison between the difference in round vs. 'Q'-rings to O-Symetric vs. 'Q'-rings. The difference in the ovalization between the two is dramatic.

Unlike one of the other respondents, I can easily switch between the 'Q'-rings and round rings. It seems to take only a few minutes to adapt. Not so the O-Symetric rings. I have stopped using them for now, but may make a more 'concerted' effort over the winter. I would not recommend just trying them in the middle of the season. You could do that with the 'Q'-rings, if you wanted to.

Unfortunately, the only way to tell if they will work for you is to try them.

+1 they are all significantly different, although personally i found my adaptation to O'Symmetrics took about 30mins of riding and for complete syncing riding every day for a week on them. I.e. my legs would "forget" how to pedal on them between each ride until I'd had this period of consistency.

I also found adaptation to be smoother on a TT bike than on my road bike, presumably due to differences in muscle recruitment in the pedal stroke at seat angles of 72 and ~78 degrees.

I used them for 2 years on both road and TT bikes. but recently decided to drop them from my road bike. Mainly due to the shifting being a bit rubbish without ramp pins and having to ease off slightly during the change. Just got a bit annoying for me. they are quite light for rings of their size as they are slightly thinner than standard chain rings. I think my 3mm thick 54 was about 90g ( dura-ace 55 in the listings is 152g), but they are a sheet of laser cut alloy, and feel pretty cheap for £170

I've kept them on the TT bike 54/42 or sometimes just the 54 as a single ring. I like them for this application and think their main help is to push me over rises/small hills a little better and thus give a better time. FYI my CP20 is about 5-8Ws higher on the o symetrics too, but my preferred cadence at threshold is 88-91. so quite slow. I do all my intervals on the turbo on the TT bike with them so that their is no big shock at the start of the year, both in physical TT position and with the rings. I race TTs competitively in the UK.

Personally I like them to TT on but then I know a few people who despised them. I think they suit riders with naturally higher torque figures while pedalling. You do definitely know that the are almost rectangular! I found q rings to disappear vv quickly once i had the right setting.


P.s. they can be a barsteward to fit on some bikes (and they don't like Sram cranks apparently.)

My "struggle" adapting to the q rings wasn't really with the motion.. if that makes sense. Within a week or so the motion felt OK but the whole time I rode them my legs could definitely feel that something was off. I didn't notice an improvement in my performance anywhere and definitely didn't like how "pumped" they seemed to make my legs feel on climbs. Coming from a pretty heavy weight lifting background (and still being a big fan of difficult squats) I expected the non-round rings to "fit" me better. Ah well.


A bit OT, my apologies

I'm getting really tempted to try out the 52t Osymetric ring... season is over for me, minus some cross, so i can plop it on my TT bike. Will it work with a standard inner? Im not sure why the outer costs as much as the inner ($160).

Also, is there a difference between the OsymetricUSA rings and the O,Symetric.com rings? I can get the inner and outer of the o,symetric on ebay for $250, versus $320 for USA

Im thinking of running a compact 110 bcd 52/38... any reason to swap cranks and go 52/42 for example?

@imaking20 i didn't mean to imply otherwise, just that my feelings were different.

Only real benefit for the 42 would be a closer shift between rings which can be temperamental.
USA and original ones are the same, just manufactured in different places under license.

It will "work" with a standard inner but your legs would never forgive you!

I would only really want a inner ring in TTs for the slog back to the race HQ after the race! or if it was an exceptionally hilly race!

P.s. regarding the 5-8w improvement that comes in at 1.5-2% improvement which could easily be down to other factors!